The Peacemakers

Expert mediators explain how to end stalemates and resolve conflicts

Members
of Congress partially shut down the federal government for 16 days, wasted an
estimated $24 billion and pushed the United States economy to the brink of
collapse.

Although
the immediate crisis has been solved, the weeks of stalemate have done little
to solve the problems that created it, from the outsize power held by tea party
House Republicans to the fundamental disagreements Republicans and Democrats
have over the size and responsibilities of the federal government. Members of
Congress may have called a truce, but they certainly haven’t negotiated a
lasting peace.

Wisconsin,
of course, is no stranger to this kind of brinkmanship and polarization. Tempers
aren’t as heated as they were when Gov. Scott Walker “dropped the bomb” with
his collective bargaining rights-gutting bill in January 2011, but it’s still
fairly difficult to have a conversation with someone who holds opposing views
and not start an argument.

Although
the Washington and Madison dramas were political, like every conflict they are
personal, too. Local experts in conflict resolution found some useful lessons
in recent political dramas—and explained how these problems can be avoided in the
future, not only in the political sphere, but in one’s own life, too.

Identify
Interests

Former
state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske heads Marquette University’s
Restorative Justice Initiative, which utilizes a collaborative approach to
repairing harm done to others, and just helped to negotiate a long-term
agreement between Milwaukee County, the War Memorial and the Milwaukee Art
Museum.

Geske
said the government shutdown mess could have been resolved more readily if
those involved had held private conversations when they’re not posturing so
that they could get at the root of their interests, whether it’s reining in the
tea party or getting re-elected in a very conservative district.

“In
Washington, for example, it seems that people believe they were elected not to
negotiate and to stay true to certain positions,” Geske said. “We talk about
that in negotiation, the difference in positions and interests. So you’re
trying to find out what it is they’re trying to protect.”

Set
Aside Your Emotions

Brookfield-based
business consultant and mediator R.J. Weiss said it’s important to understand
the psychological and physiological processes that are in play during any
stressful conversation. Chief among them is the increase in blood flow to the
primitive part of the brain. That makes the fight-or-flight instinct kick in
and puts us in a defensive, right-or-wrong, my-way-or-the-highway mindset.

“It’s
the law of the jungle, that might makes right,” Weiss said.

This
physiological process heightens our emotions, Weiss said, and leads us to
ascribe negative motives to the other person—and more than half the time our
attributions are incorrect.

Weiss
said that the best way to get out of this primitive state is to realize what’s
going on internally and to try to soothe yourself with deep, calming breaths to
counteract the shallow breathing that’s depriving your brain of oxygen. Once
you’re calmer, you can think more clearly. And if you are constantly enraged,
it’s time to call in a neutral, third-party facilitator.

Stop
the Name Calling

Geske
said productive discussions shut down immediately once a label is affixed to an
opponent.

“You
hear it carried out in people having political discussions thinking that the
other side is evil,” Geske said. “One of the things we do in restorative
justice, if we have the opportunity, is have people tell personal stories about
why they’ve come to that philosophical view. People can understand that then.
But to simply say, ‘I’m right and you’re evil’—you don’t have any negotiations when
you’ve done that. We see that in the media. It’s that labeling that happens as
opposed to analysis. Or that everybody is stupid on that side, or everybody is
a moocher or a taker. All of these are different characterizations of people
rather than philosophical differences on the role of government.”

Listen

Listening
may be the most difficult part of the process, but to Harry Webne-Behrman, it’s
the most essential ingredient in any negotiation.

“They
need to make a commitment that they really are prepared to understand one
another’s perspectives,” said Webne-Behrman, a training officer and consultant
with the office of human resource development at UW-Madison and a principal in
the consulting firm Collaborative Initiative. “That takes some time and it takes
some openness that the political process often undermines and, in fact,
devalues. We get much more reinforcement for speaking over one another.”

For
example, Webne-Behrman said President Obama got unnecessary flak for suggesting
that he and the leaders of Iran should begin a dialogue for the first time in
decades. That kind of willingness to talk to one’s so-called enemy is an
absolutely necessary first step toward peacemaking, he said.

“If
you sit down and you know your enemy, you are much less likely to demonize that
person or that nation and you can start to understand where they’re coming
from, even if you don’t agree with them,” Webne-Behrman said. “And for a lot of
people, they want to feel that the other person understands where they are
coming from.”

Ask
Questions

Cheryl
Gemignani, an attorney who specializes in collaborative divorce, said it’s
essential to ask questions and gather as much information as possible so that
you can understand your own motivations and come up with the best solution.

“Sometimes
you need to be careful what you wish for,” Gemignani said. “You might want it
and you might think you want it but by the time I’m finished asking you all of
these hard questions I really need you to think about whether or not this is
indeed what you want. In the event it isn’t, I can say, ‘Are you satisfied that
maybe this isn’t the best thing for you?’”

Play
It Forward

Geske
said thinking through all of the consequences of one’s position is a vital part
of the negotiating process. For example, in the face of much solid evidence to
the contrary, some members of Congress and pundits claimed that a default
wouldn’t be such a bad thing for the economy. Geske suggested that these folks
should work through the effects of a default on all of the people it would
impact.

“It’s
not just not paying the bills,” Geske said. “What’s the impact on the people
that you represent? You go beyond the positional statements of people and you
get to their interests and you try to work it through.”

‘Compromise’
Isn’t a Bad Word

Attorney
Gemignani said many people don’t want to compromise because they believe that
they will have to give something up. But an appropriate solution—or
compromise—doesn’t always involve leaving the table empty-handed.

“A
good deal is if both parties feel like they had the information they needed and
thus the knowledge to make a decision,” Gemignani said. “That they got heard.
That they could vent. And that they reached a solution of their own accord that
nobody imposed on them.”

Webne-Behrman
said most people eventually realize that negotiation is the best way to bring
about a solution.

“People’s
willingness to negotiate is going to come when they perceive that either that
they share a common goal, which is a nice thing, or at least as often, when the
alternatives stink,” he said. “One reason why people will sit down and
negotiate is that they realize that continuing on this course, this path, is
going to be really damaging.”

Brinksmanship
Doesn’t Work

And
what about those who categorically refuse to negotiate? Weiss said it’s helpful
to consider the cost of digging in one’s heels and never finding a resolution.

“Many
times people only look at what they’re giving up and not what they’re getting,”
Weiss said. “So, what is the cost of agreement versus the cost of disagreement?
Is it better to get nothing?”

Weiss
said brinksmanship is a terrible strategy when you have an ongoing relationship
with somebody of if you represent a constituency where your objective is to
represent their best interests.

“Because
if you get nothing, that is not in their best interests,” Weiss said. “You
incur a greater cost than if you got some benefits.”

That
said, Geske acknowledged that, at times, there are some people who simply
refuse to negotiate and are rewarded for it.

“A
lot of people in conflict will say it’s a matter of principle,” Geske said.
“Negotiators hate to hear that. For some people it is a matter of principle and
no matter what they’ll go down with the ship and that’s what’s most important
to them. There may be politicians like that right now who have that as their
number one priority.”

Recent Blogs

Poll

Scott Walker has proposed virtually eliminating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If passed, do you believe that Walker’s proposal would directly or indirectly impact the health of you or your children?